This is what was wrong with Richard Dawkins

In 1995 they created the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (SPPUS) and appointed Richard Dawkins to the post. It evidently got to him cos he gradually worked himself into a positivistic Enlightenment lather and went on witch hunt to root out irrationality, superstition and unproven beliefs amongst the hoi polloi.

Well he got a lot of backing particularly in America from people sick of having Christianity piously forced down their throats. And there is nothing worse for a non-believer than having a believer condescend them.

But a quick look at SRH should have brought Mr Dawkins to a quick stop. What was actually rational about rampaging around the world pursuing the rational? What is actually scientific about Science? Scientists have no more idea why they do what they do than non scientists. So Dawkins never actually stopped to ask the sense of this post he held, and the concept of the "Public Understanding of Science", or why he was the one who should do it, and why no one else was doing it etc etc etc.

And that actually illustrates what is wrong with Richard Dawkins. One thing that Science encourages is a total removal of self, and self reflection. The good scientists is not present in their experiments at all. Science is absolute never about the self, it is anathema to self. If self ever turns up in Science then it becomes invalid. A scientists is here and what they are studying must by definition be on the other side of the glass, testtube or whatever container (be that physical or mental). I mean what use is a science that creates knowledge that is only for me, and where I need be present for it to be true. The very essence of scientific knowledge is that it makes no difference who is present (or who does the experiment) for it to be true, or even in its strongest sense that even with no one present it is still true! 

And there is the problem with Dawkins. He's in a container, with the world outside, pristine and awaiting enquiry from the mind.

So its no wonder he does not understand Religion which is almost the complete opposite. Religion is all about self, all about understanding our place in the world, all about our relationship with things. It is not as some think about persecuting the self and sacrificing ourselves like Jesus. Anyone can die on a cross, indeed two thieves died with Jesus on the very same day. Dying on a cross is a very easy thing to do. Jesus did far more, he forgave from the cross is amazing thing one. And for the faithful he rose again from the dead. That last thing is far outside ordinary experience so will leave that as hot potato. But for the ordinary its easy to grasp the amazing quality of forgiveness for those who are killing you. That is not mindless self destruction, that is maintaining a positive relationship with others even when facing death. Religion is all about relationships. And so can never be science which is about cutting the relationship between the scientist and the world so that only the world remains as pure unpolluted, universal Fact.

What was wrong with Dawkins is he never understood the importance of the near, and how the far is not that important. He thinks that Religion is all about God, is all about abstract factual speculations about the universe, something to discuss over a beer on a Friday. Yes for the religious this is the least important. Christians in particular "follow Jesus" and that means considering what they do right now, right here. About transforming themselves to be like Jesus and fulfil the goodness they lies within them. And while God may be at the root of what they do, it is not something that gets much thought. Its the last thing to discuss not the first. While for Dawkins its the only think to discuss. This is faith. Transformation of ourselves based upon a compass bearing, rather than a map and photo of the destination. No one knows where life takes us, no one knows where Jesus will take us. There is just the compass bearing within us that we follow and wait to see.

Dawkins never realised that he was following his own compass bearing. Nothing in science told him to do what he did. To argue what he did. Science does not have an opinion on how we live, or what we believe. That is an internal compass that Dawkins it seems had switched on by the panel that set up the SPPUS. So it wasn't even his own compass bearing, how unscientific!